dennislmay

Members
  • Posts

    1,236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dennislmay

  1. With all those old starts dying how do we get new ones? And if the cosmos is a closed system and entropy increases, if the cosmos is eternal why is it not totally disordered? As has been discussed several times before... We get new stars because matter and energy are recycled both through conventional recycling and through non-linear QM entanglement recycling. Even our own sun produces extended streams of pure hydrogen at speeds where it leaves the galaxy to recollect between galaxies - thus materials for nearly pristine new galaxies form again. The cosmos is not a closed system and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. Dennis What is outside the cosmos? Word games won't change the definitions of boundary conditions in thermodynamics - I suggest you look into it so we don't have to keep having this dead end discussion every few months. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to a spatially and temporally infinite universe. Dennis
  2. I have a hard time discussing information with people who purposefully cut themselves off from information. Dennis
  3. With all those old starts dying how do we get new ones? And if the cosmos is a closed system and entropy increases, if the cosmos is eternal why is it not totally disordered? As has been discussed several times before... We get new stars because matter and energy are recycled both through conventional recycling and through non-linear QM entanglement recycling. Even our own sun produces extended streams of pure hydrogen at speeds where it leaves the galaxy to recollect between galaxies - thus materials for nearly pristine new galaxies form again. The cosmos is not a closed system and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. Dennis
  4. Again I ask where does BaalChatzaf get his news? I suspect it is like I found on Atlantis_II - two or three regulars refused to go where the news is - so they remained unaware of current events. You couldn't discuss many subjects with them because they had no knowledge of current events over an extended period of time. It doesn't matter what Beck is - he is the one with the information. Dennis
  5. Beck just reported - the Saudi student was given a special waiver to even be in the country - was on the no fly list and was on the list of known terrorists with one prior event - before Boston. He has the evidence of who in government tampered with and attempted to destroy the evidence and is going to trickle it out. Also gave out the names of the 2 agents who created the original file - interesting to see what will happen to them to cover for Napolitano. Beck has multiple copies of the evidence and has some in safes at various locations. Dennis
  6. As I suggested a few days ago Beck indeed announced he will be wanting to hire veteran journalists who tried to report on the Saudi student and the Saudi connection - but got their stories spiked by at least 2 major networks. Beck also announced he will be reporting on which networks knew what and when and refused to report on it. So far only Fox News radio did some reporting - then removed the story after the fact once it was reported has having done so on Beck's radio show. Beck said Janet Napolitano will be the first to lose her job because of this cover-up and her multiple perjuries before congress. If we had a real justice department she would be headed for prison for 10-20. 10-20 being Beck's number. Beck is going to continue to dribble out the information [modeled after Matt Drudge's tactic when he had the information all along on Clinton and wanted him to lie and lie some more to show the failure of the networks to investigate]. The details on todays dribble of information on the cover-up comes at the top of the hour. Doing the dribble will allow Beck to find more legitimate reporters, further document the failure of the media, keep the story alive longer so it isn't buried, and give the chance for more law enforcement officials and congressmen to come forward. Dennis
  7. I have never believed in the Big Bang theory so I really can't help you attempt to understand it. Dennis
  8. Excellent photos. The neighborhood from 1905 looks just like many to this day. Well made buildings and houses didn't change - about everything else did. Dennis
  9. Sounds like you want to reinvent the Infinite Improbability Drive: or something similar to how propulsion worked in this Star Trek TNG episode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nth_Degree_(TNG_episode) Dennis
  10. And when the collapse comes the 82,000 will be worse off than they were before. Dennis
  11. Correct, I have been fighting a few incorrect portions of mainstream science since I was 15. Dennis
  12. I've test three ways. It comes out INTJ. Sometimes I have a nightmare and I dream that I am an INTP. Sounds like I am your nightmare but have not been tested to know for sure :-) Dennis
  13. Private peer review is the only solution. Who is left in science not on the government teat? Dennis Fine. let it be private. But people who publish (apparently this does not apply to you) at the very least should have their work checked for mistakes. Ba'al Chatzaf Part of my disgust with the system resulted from having professors who were also journal editors, plus corresponding with other journal editors and knowing people who were the victims of bad journal editors. Private is the only way to go - with the gun of government and stolen cash behind all the major physics journals you end up with a good-ole-boys rewards network with no incentive to "journal" actual progress in physics. I am happy to publish in private places and have done so. I have received no notice to correct mistakes to date. I have however been known to find errors in journals, on-line encyclopedias, government research, government publications, books, and textbooks and found that they are not interested in being told of their mistakes with the exception of Wikipedia. Dennis
  14. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=15551 OK I found the person you referred to. Dennis
  15. The second one is a small medical research outfit, not sure if the first one is a lawyer/investment banking group or you intended something else? Dennis
  16. Feynman was a problem because he endorsed indeterministic QM, actively taught that there were no other viable options when he knew fully well that the "proof" of von Neumann had been disproven so indeterminism no longer held any special place among QM theories. Like Bohr before him there is a body of evidence out there to suggest [and several people who have said as much] that he actively attempted to sabotage the careers of those supporting deterministic QM. Einstein did not support David Bohm's breakthrough in QM at a crucial time - causing a 12 year delay until J.S. Bell came forward with support. Einstein had his own failed dog in the fight and couldn't see the importance of what Bohm demonstrated. In both cases Feynman in QM and Einstein in QM and gravity the names of the giants were used/continue to be used in appeals to authority holding back progress in physics. Einstein did make significant contributions in a few areas of physics but his best known works - not so much. Feynman apparently made contributions during the Manhattan Project - his other contributions will have to be reworked into a corrected QM. It is hard to say what contributions will remain after the rework [i suspect little]. Dennis
  17. Private peer review is the only solution. Who is left in science not on the government teat? Dennis
  18. Somehow I knew you were going to write that. Probably because I've said it before. Feynman was proponent of indeterminism [perhaps a change of heart just before his death according to Carver Mead] and never seemed to appreciate the damage done helping the assertion of the arbitrary - leading to the mess physics and cosmology is today. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Sting theory with 10**500 solutions, unseen dimensions, the mind affecting QM - all assertions of the arbitrary. I have not been a fan of Feynman since the late 1970's. There is only one non-government college in the last partially free nation in the world - Hillsdale College - not exactly known for physics. I don't know of any physics journal Ba'al Chatzaf would approve of that is not directly or indirectly a government journal. I do not seek government approval nor would I accept it. I've been there done that. The government journals and government approved peer review are dead to me. They are more often than not 35+ years behind the times. Sometimes as much as 100+ years behind in their assertions because they don't read history and cannot understand the mistakes made before. What doesn't fit the narrative of today is all the journals are concerned with. Dennis
  19. I assume that is because you are peerless and a legend in your own mind. If peer review was good enough for Richard Feynman it is good enough for me. Ba'al Chatzaf Feynman was part of the problem - not the solution. There are plenty of sources and outlets of and for information that don't require a government funded university sanctioned publication. Stealing my tax money for unconstitutional purposes is only the first insult on the way to government approved peer review. Dennis
  20. Since Dennis has not published a word, I have no way of describing him. (Is that clean enough for you). As for me I am a Meyer Briggs IN\TJ which means I look for what works.; I am a born pragmatist and and empirical person. Theories are nice, and even useful at times. but facts ARE the universe. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf finds value in peer review - I do not since about 1991. Dennis
  21. I am a billiard balls clockwork hard determinist in the same sense as Laplace and other classical physics hard determinists. Dennis
  22. At every scale there is still smaller, at every scale there is still larger. Dennis
  23. Definitely not a dumb question - really the most important question in physics. It is my view that the scale of smaller and smaller particles continues on indefinitely into the smaller and smaller - but mine is a minority view in current times. That implies we will never understand the smallest particles since they continue to get smaller and smaller beyond our ability to observe them. The majority view is that at some very small but finite size space and time become granular and smaller objects do not exist. I would however point out that every observation predicted to exist based on granular space has to this date been observed to be wrong. Thus the theory of granular based space-time is a hypothesis so far without evidence. There are many nearly equivalent QM theories and only a few predict granular space time. I view most of them as wildly incorrect and since they have no evidence to support themselves the question remains wide open. Dennis
  24. Mega dittos dude! I can't get Rush at work so I don't get to hear him much except when traveling. He is how I first heard of Rand and Mark R. Levin. Not a word about Rand or anything like her when I was in high school or college. Talk radio has taught me magnitudes more in several subjects than the liberal arts parts of my college education. Dennis